MTG Salvation

Hey there. After creating a land-fall esque mechanic called Arise, I was inspired to make a second Zendikar-esque mechanic to capture other elements of the previous blocks.

Ascendant- Whenever X, put a quest counter on this creature.

Examples:

Kor Rallier
Creature- Kor Soldier (U)
Ascendant- Whenever you cast a creature spell, put a quest counter on this creature.
Creatures you control enter the battlefield with a +1/+1 counter if there are three or more quest counters on Kor Rallier.
2/3

Tuktuk Salvager
Creature- Goblin Rogue (R)
Ascendant- Whenever an artifact card is put into your graveyard from anywhere, put a quest counter on this creature.
At the beginning of your upkeep, you may discard an artifact card. If you do and there are four or more quest counters on Tuktuk salvager, return up to one artifact card from your graveyard to your hand.
1/1

Humble Naturalist
Creature- Elf Shaman (C)
Ascendant- Whenever a basic land enters the battlefield under your control, put a quest counter on this creature.
Humble Naturalist gets +3/+3 as long as there are four or more quest counters on it.
1/1

Voice of Silence
Creature- Angel (M)
Flying, Lifelink, Vigilance
Ascendant- Whenever an opponent casts a second spell each turn, put a quest counter on this creature.
Voice of Silence gets +2/+2 for each quest counter on it.
3/3

Occupying a mid-ground between the old level-up mechanic and quests of the original Zendikar, this design space is relatively simplified (compared with the templating of level-up) and encourages interesting play lines (or can serve as discouragement for foes, as the last example illustrates).

I personally see bringing edh players into standard as an impossible task due to how the game is structured.

Standard play makes heavy use of asynchronous card access (getting components for the deck is not part of the actual game as it is with drafting, cubes, or card games like ascension), players are allowed up to 4 copies of nonbasic cards and only need 60 cards in their library (meaning that players could fill a deck and sideboard with fewer than 20 different cards while avoiding basic lands), the game is generally played with a competitive mindset, a highly limited subset of cards are legal, and instant information is available online.

Between all of these factors, standard decks are pushed toward toward consistency and higher win rates through the use of a few good cards, whose presence is quickly learned after a new set releases or new bans are announced.

In other words, Standard is a terrible environment for Brewing!


Seriously, brewing in a solved standard and expecting to win at FNM is like trying to forge a new chess strategy before playing against well-trained players. If you aren’t ABSURDLY talented at the game, you probably won’t get to far at brewing... and no amount of brewing skill will make the decks you “want” to play playable, instead simply revealing new lines or slight alterations allowable within the current meta and card pool.

EDH, meanwhile, is a lot more friendly to brewers. Increased deck size and singleton restrictions forces a larger portion of the card pool into playability and the vast size of the card pool can make it harder to identify “correct” choices even with tools like EDHRec. Plus, the (generally) casual nature of the format and multiplayer dynamics allows it to better accommodate suboptimal decks at many play tables.

Quote from TheOnlyOne652089 »

If you call everyone anti semit you dont do the real problems any favor.
True evil is problematic, no matter what and how its delivered, and almost never its just one side to blame, the world is way more complex than that.

This... is an argument that I have never understood. I really do want to understand, though.

If I want to blame someone who thinks that *Group A* is unintelligent/should be sterilized/should be killed/should be deported and membership in *Group A* isn't based on active choice (or is a religious choice)... what's the other side? What's the conversation to be had?

• I doubt that you are saying that that we should be giving equal "screen time" to the people saying "Kill Group A" and those saying "Rights for Group A" so people can work out some sort of "compromise".
• Does looking at blame on the other side mean paying attention to societal and individual traumas, economic plight, propagation of misinformation, and lack of mental health that may lead individuals to hold such views, holding a space to view people in a wider context before condemning them as an individual?
• Does looking at blame on the other side mean accusing cancel culture of alienating a portion of the population instead of reaching out to them to produce positive change, making these people feel disenfranchised and afraid to engage in the sort of conversations that might possibly change their views?
• Does looking at blame on the other side mean more generally pointing out that hating groups that hate is an inherently hypocritical to a certain degree (though I would counter that hating a group based on actions they choose to do is characteristically than hating a group based on who they are)?
• Does looking at blame on the other side mean looking at the examples that we have knowingly allowed to slide (including transgressions made by "the good guys" or classic works that survive problematic creators such as "Chinatown") and simply stating that nobody has a right to judge anybody as there is no "moral high ground"?

I can understand feeling anxious about feeling that there are some thoughts that have no safe space for free expression. The zeitgeist of modern culture can be a terrifying thing and if a community decides that severe consequences are deserved for criticizing a specific politician or political policy, that is a terrifying thing. I acknowledge that there is a lot of "gray areas" where specific policies (Alaskan oil rights, circumcision, stop and frisk, etc.) are directly tied to specific groups and discussions become minefields at the best of times.

At the core of these gray areas, however, I feel that there are some conversations that do not deserve to exist. "Should members of group A all be killed?" is not a conversation that needs to exist,even if it is not explicitly illegal. "Members of group A don't belong in this country" is not a starting point for reason or compromise. I can imagine no possible value in giving people a safe place to say "Group A is genetically inferior". Apart from the obvious two reasons (It is legal and censorship is a slippery slope), is there any reason for society to allow these central statements to continue without consequence? Is there any value in allowing that conversation to occur?

Quote from Shiroe The Enchanter »

Quote from MoonliteKnight »

I have a very credible source that has informed me that OP's claims are false, and that Zendikar Rising will sell like crazy because it will have enemy fetchlands in the set, which is all it needs to fly off the shelves.

Zendikar Rising would be an odd place to add enemy fetchlands, because Wizards would have to immediately ban them for the Pioneer format. I would have expected them in a supplemental set, not a Standard set (although, as you say, the set would sell well)

I personally expect them to appear as box-toppers (and appear in collectors boosters) but specifically have them NOT be standard legal (like inventions).

As it hasn't been said yet, I really hope that this is the set in which fetch lands will be reprinted (as they can't be reprinted in standard-legal sets and are confirmed to have another reprint this year), even though I am 99% sure that they will be given out as special box toppers with Zendikar boxes (seeing how they were given out via expeditions last time around and box toppers are the newest distribution model for special cards).

Quote from FirstSwordOfBant »

Quote from Rosy Dumplings »

I’m confused by lots of the complaints. It has been clearly listed through all of the spoilers this week that each pack only has one of its special land and I’m pretty sure the news has been out even longer. That isn’t news at this point.

It might not be the latest news, but that doesn't invalidate the complaint. The themed basics are among the most notable features of this set (of course not for everyone, but overall they are a selling point) and they are making them a lot rarer than one would expect (without explicitly looking up the numbers) for no real reason.
It would even improve the feeling of the decks when opened and played as intended to have all fitting lands instead of a single one that you might even draw once in a while...

If they really wanted to create chaseable basics, using 7 regular themed lands plus one foil/full art per booster (as suggested above) would have been a far better option for everyone imo.

I guess that I can understand the complaint. People want something that wizards had the means to give them and they are only being drip-fed something exciting instead of taking the Guild Deck approach (where all basics in the guild decks had the guild treatment).

With that said, I am basically of the opposite opinion in regards to this. For every EDH player willing to dish out to have all angel plains, for example, a ton of baneslayer angel cards are going to be entering into circulation... which will help drive down the cost of the cards in this set and help out a whole lot of players.

When Tolarian Community College reviewed the Godzilla Lands Secret Lair Drop (which sold a single set of lands for $6 each, likely more than what most of these will go for), the Professor reported that this sort of scarcity item, serving as bling to players that really want it without being essential for any deck (as everyone already has basic lands) is an excellent model. I am inclined to agree with this perspective and think that it is great... especially when combined with $4 set that packs in a number of high-price reprints and a number of interesting new cards for commander... and this product gives a (somewhat) novel play experience... and introduces a huge array of cards to Historic if you aren't playing paper MTG.

Even if the complaint is valid, I don't personally agree with the point made. While this system sucks for people who only want the basic lands, I see the product as largely positive.

I’m confused by lots of the complaints. It has been clearly listed through all of the spoilers this week that each pack only has one of its special land and I’m pretty sure the news has been out even longer. That isn’t news at this point.

Also, letting players choose what themes they were after would be kind of self-defeating. I wouldn’t want players only choosing the theme with Oracle of Mul Daya in drafts to fish for the one single they are looking for, for example. The inability to force a color or strategy if you don’t pull the right pack can be a bit of a let down but it’s kind of the entire point of this product.

Rune-tail prevents combat damage, which sanctuary cannot. Still nice, though.

This set is odd. Like, really odd.

In a normal set, a normal rare has about a 1/50 chance of being pulled while a mythic has about 1/120 (1/8 chance of getting one of fifteen mythics).

In this set, any card that appears in exactly one pack list has a rarity comparable to a mythic while those in two pack lists have rarity closer to (but slightly worse than) a rare... regardless of the rarity on the card.

As such, Selvala (a mythic) is effectively a rare while Rhystic Study (a rare in this set) is effectively a mythic. That is kind of bonkers, right?

Was not expecting a reference to allosaurus rider. Interesting to see one, though.

Quote from Ryperior74 »

Quote from SonofaBith75 »

Quote from Ryperior74 »

RIPTIDE LABORATORY!

Inalla decks rejoice we can get the missing land at the right cost now

A $9 price tag stops practically no one from acquiring a card.

Well that price tag is gonna go sayonara after this

I’m not so sure about that. Keep in mind that with 121 pack lists, a card that appears in only one pack appears with the relative frequency of a Mythic Rare in a normal set (even though the rarity symbol says otherwise).

While some cards will certainly see a dip in prices from being reprinted at effectively mythic rarity (oracle and exquisite blood, for example), I doubt that the lab’s price will dip more than $1-2, which is nice but not super exciting.

Just realized that the activated ability does not tap. Big mana with coffers and the like is kind of scary.

Quote from Ryperior74 »

you get your commander to at least 11 power somehow that's an all the sudden one-hit-wonder just before combat damage

As with Doublestrike. This is a form of “Doublestrike” that stacks with itself, however, and I think that’s the big part. One attack with Kalamax and this card deals 20 damage.

I’m pretty sure it has been revealed that a phyrexian jump-start pack is a thing. The thought that they’d print another mythic in phyrexian like they did for the Elesh Norn promo doesn’t seem too impossible.

I’m also a little skeptical on the Un-set as I’m pretty sure that one or two of the three emails he received were from before Unsanctioned was officially announced.

Hmm... I’d be on board if the green version was Call of the Herd, Obscuring Haze, Prey Upon, gnaw to the bone, Nature’s Spiral in that order, though that’s probably too good even at 6.